Can you justify Rotherham Council?

24 November 2012

7:42 PM

24 November 2012

7:42 PM

Remarkable story in today’s Daily Telegraph. A couple from Rotherham who fostered children have had the kids taken away from them by social workers – because they were members of UKIP. The adults, not the kids. Having been previously considered ‘exemplary’ carers, the couple – who do not wish to be named – were allegedly confronted by a social worker who told them that the council had received “tip-off” that the pair were UKIP supporters. This made them unsuitable as carers because UKIP had “racist” policies, according to the imbecilic social worker. And the kids were re-allocated. Aside from those Owen Jones trolls who arrived here yesterday like demented sheep, can anyone suggest a justification for this?

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Colin Wells

    Why did this woman merit a £130.000 salary in a third rate town

  • rndtechnologies786

    Nice thought and blog.

  • Derk Aderkaderk

    This is outrageous! The state has no right to exist if it acts this incompetent. Sack the people involved and adapt stricter laws, you cant just confiscate someones kid if you think that the parents are bad parents,you need actual proof of abuse!

    Whats next,nationalization of all testicles?Why not just make every citizen property of the state once and for all..

    • StephanieJCW

      We’re talking about kids in foster care. The parents in question were the foster parents.

  • Woodstockwastrel

    I refer to Christopher Booker

  • Grumpyoldman

    Shades of Big brother and Baby P.

  • Wilhelm

    Shouldn’t Owen Jones be in school ? and not skiving off to appear on Question Time, way past his bed time.

  • Wilhelm

    Hatchet faced, Commissar Joyce Thacker has banned people who belong to UKIP from adopting children.

    Let’s reverse it, will muslim parents be stopped from adopting Christian children ? after all, they believe that we non believers are all kufirs and infidels.

    Or will black parents be stopped from adopting, some of them I’m led to believe practice witchcraft ?

    • StephanieJCW

      Makes no sense. Dumb comparison. And this is a story about FOSTER parents. Not adoptive!

  • TheTurnipTaliban

    The spookiest, most depressing part of this story, was the “anonymous tip-off” that led to the children being taken away. It is by no means an exaggeration to say that this is exactly how the Stasi worked.

  • StephanieJCW

    “Aside from those Owen Jones trolls who arrived here yesterday like demented sheep, can anyone suggest a justification for this?”

    None. None whatsoever. It is a mad decision.

  • Sarah

    Owen trolls? They seemed pretty sincere to me. Owen supporters, did you mean? Owen fans? With posters of Owen. Dreams of Owen. Lucky old Owen’s no rock star or you’d be forced to defend him.

    So, picture the scene: you move to Rotherham, you die in a tragic accident, your children are taken into to loving embrace of Common Purpose member foster parents. They have designs on your little ones’ cultural proclivities. Now do you see the problem?

    • rod liddle

      I meant trolls, Sarah. But sheep is better. Fanboys isn’t bad. But kneejerk sheep probably best. I like the idea of sheep, knee-jerking.

  • OldSlaughter

    It stems from the term ‘multicultural’. I have encountered this many times where idiots believe term to mean ‘multiracial’. Then when they here somebody being against it they assume this means white-only.

    Someone says UKIP are critical of multi-multiculturalism and the rest follows predictably.

    This process is not helped by BBC/Guardian and others too often keen to use sentences like “fringe parties such as the BNP and UKIP”. Cheaply lumping them together.

    • Oedipus Rex

      Totally agree. The misuse of language can have profound consequences, and this seems to be an example. I am against ‘multi-culturalism’ – in as much as I can understand it – but am certainly anti-racist.
      But of course, I get called otherwise, as you might well guess.

      You would think that there are enough people with a tiny bit of intelligence able to distinguish between the words ‘race’ and ‘culture’ but it appears they are few – or not in power, or in the media, or in the workplace.

      • StephanieJCW

        The problem is there are a fair few people, both pro and anti multiculturalism who use race/culture interchangeably. Probably because they mistakenly believe the former informs the latter. Look at the ridiculous term ‘black culture’ for example!

  • OhThisBloodyPC

    Rotherham COuncil Motivational speech:

    “We can take away their homes. We can take away their children. We can take away their freedom!

    But we will never, ever, take away their bin bags.”

  • Edster

    Honestly, what can you expect from someone who has evidently ticked enough boxes to be become head of Social Work in Rotherham – wherever that ghastly sounding place may be.

    On a side note, your average German must have been ecstatic when Dachau was opened…

  • Simon

    No Justification at all. So basically if we don’t adopt the Liberal ….Diversity (I.E. Anti Christian) dirge we can’t foster kids..I am beginning to hate this country

  • Simon Morgan

    If I was the parents I’d be suing. If the courts in Rotherham are complete wankers like their council members (which they no doubt are) I’d be heading for Strasbourg. Ironic that the courts that most people in England have always detested are turning out to be useful allies against the Loony Left councils of GB. Shows just how removed from reality the Left really is.

  • Whiteflighter

    In January 2011 David Cameron gave a speech in Munich where he said that the ‘Doctrine of state Multiculturism’ had failed. Followingthe logic of Thacker then all members of the Conservative party should also be deemed to be unsuitable to become foster parents.

    Prime Minister, time to break your silence on this issue.

  • andagain

    can anyone suggest a justification for this?

    I can’t justify it, but I can explain it as coming naturally to any body whose actions are always kept secret “to protect the children”.

  • John Lea

    Has anyone else noticed how far down the list this appears on the BBC News website? There are large flashy items on ‘Feminism and Faith’, the ‘victims of Gaza’, and the elections in Catalonia, but this particular story is reduced to a footnote. I wonder why.

  • Daniel Maris

    There are obviously a lot of agent provocateurs on here…possibly having taken up permanent residence on instruction from someone who might or might not have appeared on a well known political panel programme on TV.

  • Swankyflanks

    David Cameron should intervene, explaining that the agency responsible is not the government of Britain, and that Britain is a democracy, which means that it is not a one-party state and it is perfectly acceptable to be citizens that support various legal parties. It is not for a bureaucrat to decide that because she doesn’t like one or other of the political parties, she and her agency have the right to penalize people and indeed break up homes for the sake of her partisan prejudice. She is the type that actually dislikes democracy and would like, in her dreams, to criminalize partisan affiliation apart from the one that she herself likes. (Let me guess: it’s Leftist and statist in nature.)

    David Cameron as leader of the democracy should say this. And he should use the power of government to overturn this tyrannical and deeply unjust violation of democratic rights.

  • Peter Nunn

    UKIP is against councils supporting multiculturalism, council wishes to support the cultural identities of fostered children. Therefore – It is no surprise a council may feel that members of UKIP are unsuitable to foster children with a primarily non British culture, in-fact I believe that this precautionary measure was justified. I suspect that the term racism was never used, and of course UKIP is not a racist party, though it is against the supporting of other cultures, therefore implementation of their multiculturalism policies could in-fact be racist, should it happen. You cant have it both ways, be against multiculturalism yet be trusted to support the non British cultural needs of those you care for. What someone believes is the key, not what political party someone supports, so maybe a more in-depth discussion with the carers would of been a better course of action, I am not a social worker, but do think that they did what they felt was best, even if it does turn out to be wrong, when the full facts are known.

    • dodgy

      I understand that ALL the main political parties have agreed that multi-culturalism (whatever that means) is a failed theory and policy.

      So, I suppose, this means that anyone who votes for any political party is unsuitable as a foster parent….

      • John The Cooper

        …ALL the main political parties have agreed that multi-culturalism (whatever that means) is a failed theory and policy.

        It hasn’t failed. It suceeded, in that it glossed over the true policy of mult-racialism.

        Now they propose “integration” (towards uni-mongrelism), which is the next step in the programme of race replacement of the English.

        We want to live. We don’t want them “integrated”, we want them expatriated.

    • salieri

      “council wishes to support the cultural identities of fostered children”. What depressing garbage. What you mean is that the Council did not want them brought up, in Britain, as British. What are these “non British cultural needs”, whatever that may mean? You (and I) have absolutely no idea.
      Yes, a lot of social workers do what they feel is best even if it turns out to be wrong. That’s the problem.

    • FrenchNewsonlin

      Reportedly the children concerned were of Polish extraction. Plenty of Poles are fully paid up members of British society .. many going back to before the War. This argument about ‘cultural identity’ is false flag cover for Marxist indoctrination.

  • John Gee

    This is one of the most bizarre stories lately. During the second world war many Christians( and others) took in Jewish refugees and looked after them. Many children were taken care of. To say UKIP are racist is to grotesquely misstate the position.
    Something needs to be done about these loony social workers NOW!!!!

  • DENNIS1234567

    Heads should roll over this. Before ANY child is removed from any home extensive investigation must be taken. UKIP is a mainstream party not an extremist one, and a simple five minutes of research would have shown that. Whoever took the decision to remove those kids should be fired because they never carried out that investigation which the safety of those children required.

  • Beenice

    Hey they got en mass free press publicity of an idea that ukip is racist
    very clever public relations
    it might work too
    but for fact that the majority of ukip supporters that I have met would be abhorred to be thought of as racists never mind being also told that they are aligned to the bnp – which ukip also dont want to be associated with etc etc…
    This is black propaganda – can anyone explain how on earth ukip is a far right party
    the three main parties must be worried.
    Thats as far as I can see so I ought to ask has anyone got any real solid proof of ukip being racist as a party.
    If so then I want to see it cos that would be important to know
    But – careful – it better be true

    I just cannot see how ukip could be called a racist party
    At all
    so enlighten me
    I imagine though people will be sued here

  • David Burch

    “UKIP is a Nazi Party – merely the BNP in disguise”

    Tim Whale – were you born stupid or is it a trait you’ve been working on ?

  • David Burch

    ………..and here’s the best bit, the children were from Eastern European distressed families. Now let me think of a possible solution………..ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

  • valedictorian16

    If I could give 2stars for this comment thread, and Rod Liddle I would.
    I live overseas now, and don’t recognize too many names in Brit gov’t or press,
    any more: but still recognize all kinds of insiduous behaviours, rampant now
    in democracy, governments 4th and Fifth Estates – in many countries.
    Spectator is still a beacon in the dark, for allowing it to be talked about
    I particularly like the comment about harnessing rampant troll energy and putting it to good use!

    • valedictorian16

      PS. My British Humanist grandfather would love the name UKIP, if he were here today and see it as a sign UK indeed fell asleep at wheel, in terms of democracy and European Union.

      Whenever I try to post at British Humanist on Twitter, still considering myself to be one, I am shunned or called an embarassment to them.

      Could it be because they have moved on: far beyond exchanging ideas
      and goals, only wanting comments from people against religion in any form and wishing to remove certain words from all forms of public engagement, thus leaving me far behind, in my own thinking and words.
      Thank God!
      My British Humanist grandad wasn’t one because of his views about God, but because of his views from 5 years on Western Front as ambulance driver, finding god in hearts of men, littered – over battlefields. A far cry indeed !


  • John Coop

    The story is hardly “remarkable”.

    UKIP exist to further restrict the range of views that are deemed “respectable”, to portray even baby steps toward state independence, let alone our English national survival, as somehow illegitimate.

    Thus, supporting parties like the BNP is seen as extreme, whereas in truth even the BNP shrink from what is necessary and just, that is mass compulsory repatriation.

    And The Spectator employ people at 10pm on Saturdays to censor this.

  • ”STARR’

    I have heard too much crap about political correctness in past yrs — Id like us all to do our best for all concerned — when I see what is happening in the middle east and the changes in my own home town and now the fiasco in Rotherham I think its high time the muslim comunity in my country intergrated and took Brititish values on board and understood how offensive it is to the survivors and relatives of our war dead — they still have the freedom we fought for—– And the right to return to there counties of origine if they dont like it here ”personaly” I would like to see the back of all of them, and close our borders to any more (we have more than enough) ban all of them from ever gaining any kind of public office mabe there own countries would be better of for there return

  • Bert3000

    This is laughable. The only ideal UKIP has is a hatred of foriegners. It’s a racist party. It’s a party that’s all about racism. Without racism it doesn’t exist. It’s a nazi party. Allowing its members to foster children is utterly indefensible.

    • Noa

      Oh God, another Racist Finder General. Yawn.

    • Mike

      So anyone who fought the nazis but supports UKIP is a nazi?

    • anotherjoeblogs

      in my world i can not pour a full bottle of wine into a small glass; in my world i can not stuff three settees into my tiny living room ( i have managed two but it is still a bit stuffy ) i guess in your world ( as that song goes ) no no no no no no there’s no limit. have you got any limit for the population of this island ? give me a figure and i bet someone will say a higher figure and tell you how racist you are. come on , what is your tops for how many people we can have in the uk ?

    • Malfleur

      Right, that’s why Mr. Farage is married to a German. Wake up, Bert!

  • shelltop

    no thanks

  • Suzi

    Is Rotherham council run by Stalin!! If the couple are willing to take care of the children and give them a happy loving home what does it matter what their political believes are and what colour skin they have.. Maybe Rotherham council only think Labour supporters would look after a child properly..”our way or no way”..attitude…what a sad place to live!

  • John The Cooper

    The story is hardly “remarkable”.

    UKIP exist to further restrict the range of views that are deemed “respectable”, to portray even baby steps toward state independence, let alone our English national survival, as somehow illegitimate.

    Thus, supporting parties like the BNP is seen as extreme, whereas in truth even the BNP shrink from what is necessary and just, that is mass compulsory repatriation.

    • StephanieJCW

      ‘Necessary’ and ‘Just’?


  • Marcus

    Rod, It is entirely justifiable:
    We must never forget that the people of Rotherham have consistently voted Labour for a 100 years.
    This is what they want and they have got it: their children molested, other children wrenched from parents who don’t support E.U. expansion.
    As in the case of Gillian Duffy, they have consistently and bigotedly voted for this and now they have it.
    Frankly they deserve it and this is their justice.
    My advice to the UKIP couple: don’t live in the shit hole.

    • statman

      Bang on Marcus; except its not just Rotheram that’s a leftist shithole ,its the whole bloody country now.

  • Rahul Kamath

    Rod, why don’t you apply some journalistic skepticism to the Telegraph article before jumping to conclusions? Is it possible that they screwed up somewhere, that this story is a bit more complex?

    • Anonon

      I’m assuming you didn’t see the Joyce Thacker interview this morning then? She not only admitted, but also defended, the exact circumstances described in the Telegraph article. Maybe you are the one who should be reigning in your conclusions?

    • rod liddle

      Doesn’t look like it mate, does it?

  • Tim Whale

    Yes I can –
    justify Rotherham Council

    UKIP is a Nazi Party – merely the BNP in disguise

    • Emin Ness

      The UKIP candidate for Croydon is black. DOes that mean he couldn’t foster black children?

      UKIP doesn’t allow anyone from a racist party to join its ranks.

      Not sure how that makes it a Nazi party. Ex BNP people can join Labour though

      • Daniel Maris

        Wasn’t there a Labour MP who thought it appropriate to make a joke in an after dinner speech about the death of Chinese cockle pickers. Still, it’s Labour, so that’s OK.

    • Mee

      You’re a f*****g twit. YOU are the Nazi! The couple adopted MIGRANT children, so how could they be “anti-immigration”? A bunch ot twisting liars, you Stalinites!

    • Hexhamgeezer

      Lazy, stupid Twitter standard cliche generation.

  • MadAsABagOfMonkeys

    How is it that only lefties ever get chosen for social service jobs? Has anyone ever met a social services employee who seemed normal? I only ask because I have never ever met one that didn’t seem to on something or whose brain seemed disassociated from the reality of normal everyday folk!!!!!

    • Austin Barry

      Senior social service jobs are mostly advertised in the Guardian and The New Statesman, and those garnered from these fetid pools in turn appoint their own, and so on in perpetuity.

      The incestuous left, the enemy within.

      • Mark

        I’m afraid this goes for pretty well all public sector management these days. They recruit and promote only those in their narrow self-image, so the relentless march through the institutions of power is in my view now unstoppable.

        • Graeme Thompson

          It’s called Political Correctness. The only way we are ever going to stop it from destroying our democracy is to recognise that political correctness is as much a perversion of equal opportunities as racism is a perversion of patriotism and have ‘counter-subversion units’ to root out correctnicks from public life the same way racists are. If democracy doesn’t recognise its right to defend itself it wont last.

    • mackem kev

      If the government forced the public sector to recruit from a wider area we may not have so many bigots employed within it. The government should start by insisting that job adverts are more widely advertised than just the gardian.

  • Ben Layashi

    There is no question in my mind that the couple could give good home to the children. On the other hand i support the council decision too because the aim is to get the best deal for the children and in this case even if the above couple are great they are in my mind not 100% suitable because 1-they will raise the kids to support their views and 2- kids always follow their fathers so it would be wrong to feed the kids with anti-immigration and anti-Islamic teaching because Mr Farage is anti-Muslims and is known to be so.He is not a racist still . Although i support his views on EU immigration and i was born abroad( yeah i know) i do not support his religious views. It is easy to claim that the couple would do this and that …. but the fact of the matter is if you dislike non British you are bound to brain wash your kids. What the council have done was to get the balance right and in my opinion they did the right thing. On the other hand to compensate the couple they should find them a replacement as soon as possible since the couple are more than capable to offer good home to the white british kids.

    • Dicky14

      Kids always follow their fathers? And why, pray tell, is it ‘wrong’ to advocate a sensible immigration policy? You’ve got problems, son.

    • FrankS

      Some highly questionable assumptions here, Ben Layashi: they would raise the kids to support their views? If this is true, which I doubt, it would apply equally to all foster carers; All kids follow their fathers – really? I’d say the opposite is more likely!!
      You seem to believe that opposing immigration means taking an active personal dislike of individual immigrants (which is nonsense).
      There is no reason why existing immigrants (such as yourself, apparently) can’t oppose further immigration.

    • salieri

      Not 100% suitable… best deal for the children… because they will raise the kids to support their views. What kind of sick logic is this – even if it were true?
      It’s the logic which has the gall to measure degrees of ‘acceptability’ in other people’s private opinions on politics or religion – or anything at all over which a handful of bigoted busybodies have arrogated to themselves the right to moral authority. It’s the logic which denies adoption rights to couples who don’t encourage buggery. It’s the breathtaking conceit of people who think they have a right to dictate to anyone else what is “100% suitable”.

    • Wocca

      So on the one hand you think this couple would give a good home to children but on the other hand they would “feed the kids with anti-immigration and anti-Islamic teaching”. Apply to Rotherham for a job as a social worker, you’d fit in well!

    • Marian Thomson

      Do you believe the upheaval to be good for the children? Nothing has been stated that the children were being “brainwashed” nor have you proof that they were likely to brainwash the children. Apparently they are good and experienced foster carers………..Unless you have some facts that we do not know about , I would suggest that you do not make assumptions about people who give their time and care to children who are in a difficult place

    • Redneck

      Ben Layashi

      Excellent argument: so you agree, homosexual couples will raise, if adopted, homosexual children?

    • racyrich

      Spot on. The country’s been reduced to penury by 13 years of Labour rule. It would be insane to expose children to that sort of ideology, and risk its repeat, by allowing Labour voters to foster impressionable young children.

    • StephanieJCW

      “and 2- kids always follow their fathers ”

      What is this nonsense? Were you just released from a Victorian holding cell? What century do you live in?!

  • Noa

    Can anyone justify this?
    Well, the Thacker woman had a go on TV this morning, to general public excoriation.

    She has form in hushing things up too: witness Rotherham Child Protection Team’s inability to identify and prosecute the Pakistani heritage Muslim child sex gang.
    So perhaps the moral to be drawn is that if one can’t justify one’s actions its best to hide them.

    Press reporting on Rotherham MBC’s numerous CPT delinquencies has been disgraceful. It will be worse if politicians are able to control it, when no justification will be needed.

  • Troika21

    The far left infests these sorts of places, that’s how this has happened.

    When I worked in the local University, UKIP was considered as ‘the-BNP-in-suits’ party by some of the workers there.

    Of course, when it came to inviting political speakers, lefty anti-government types were invited to speak.

  • Daniel Maris


    It’s a Ray Honeyford moment. They should be reinstated as social workers first thing Monday morning, or the social services department should be taken over by central government, as clearly they are literally demented.

    Of course,though, from the perspective of a lot of Spectator writers who give us all that pro-immigration propaganda (remember Fraser being completely at ease with Mohammed being the most popular baby boy name in the UK?) the Rotheram decision makes a lot of sense.

    And of course it’s all very ironic because immigrant groups are among the most racist in the country: how many South Asians marry Africans? what do Africans say about people of Caribbean origin? how many Orthodox Jews are happy to see their daughters marry non-Jews? what do Arabs think of Jews? what do most Poles think about anyone with a skin tone browner than their own?

  • Declan Kenny

    Owen Jones is irrelevant to the case. Im a supporter of Owen Jones and the Labour party and I think it’s an awful decision. What about the children which a brought up by UKIP supporters out of care? Don’t over politicise a matter that should really be focused on the fact that damaged children have been unsettled, yet again.

    • Noa

      What odd logic. What about the children of Labour supporters? Should they be taken into care? many would say yes. So hand them kids over Milliband!

    • Nolo servile

      I’m not sure rod was saying that Owen jones was irrelevant. He was referring to the trolls who swarmed on the comment section of his previous blog post.

      However as ms Thacker made her judgement on political grounds and therefore politicised the matter it is hard to criticise her actions in a bi-partisan fashion.

  • Reiver

    Rotherham council is a hotbed of Marxists and Muslims. These are the very people who turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse, by Muslim gangs, of young children. They are unfit for public office and should driven out of any position of responsibility, but appear to have the support of the ‘liberal’ Establishment.

    Unfortunately, now that the South Yorkshire police have been further politicised with a Labour Party-backed Police Commissioner, they now have even more influence.

    • Ben Layashi

      You should be careful what you say. if you happen to have evidence of wrong doing . go to the police and stop using One pound shop brush for all Muslims

      • Wocca

        Reiver didn’t brush all Muslims, only the ones in gangs that have been prosecuted and are currently being prosecuted for grooming and gang raping youngsters.

      • Malfleur

        Ben, we don’t like the ideology; we don’t think it’s suitable for our country; it’s malevolent, divisive and dangerous, and it runs counter to two thousand years of our culture. Convert from the wacky ideas of the false prophet to any of the other available options, and all will be well.

  • DavidBath

    please sack Joyce Thacker (Rotherham Councils childrens ‘czar’ and the lady who made the decision to remove the children, before she was rumbled!) immediately !!

    • Latimer Alder

      Terms of sacking = gross dereliction of duty and gross incompetence.

      Absolutely no payoff

      • CallMeDave

        Don’t be so soft. Everyone knows that for gross dereliction of duty and gross incompetence you get a year’s salary, legal expenses, danger money for your security and a glowing reference from the chair of the board.

  • Nolo servile

    The Owen jones trolls were really quite bizarre yesterday. They plainly weren’t your regular readers and some seemed to have no idea who you were, but appeared to be in a frenzy. Bit short on the humour front too I thought. I’d heard tell but never seen them swarm before. The ugly face of politics?

    • rod liddle

      I’m afraid the future of politics, mate.

      • Daniel Maris

        Expect some PCC complaints.

      • Emin Ness

        Surely the swarm’s energy could be harnessed to turn a turbine and generate green electricity or something.

        • Nolo servile

          How appropriate that it should be green energy. Green being the colour of spite, envy and bile. All words that could be used to describe the outpourings of the Owen jones trolls swarm.

          It may be the present and future of politics but it is pretty ugly nonetheless.

      • Marian Thomson

        Politics present time, mate

    • William Reid Boyd

      A Twitter mob presumably.

      I actually find it a bit disturbing. This Owen Jones character, who I had never heard of before, is evidently pretty lightweight if not actually quite a lot thick. And yet he writes for The Independent I gather and seems to have some kind of a following judging from that episode of Question Time.

      I would call it ugly too and really worrying. Seriously.

      • Johnnydub

        “its title is self-evidently nonsense” – THIS!
        Why bother readfing the book when just the title shows it’s whiny bollocks… chavs don’t work Owen you fucking tit…

        • William Reid Boyd

          Yes, that’s right. It really amounts to a slur on the working class. It’s a stupid, pointless and untenable thesis.

    • Sid

      Ugly, you mean like calling Owen Jones a “F****** third form arrogant public school infantile leftist ****, vile smug self-righteous tosser” through an imaginary friend, and then, directly, a “halfwit” and a “pig-ignorant idiot”. And those who disagreed are “demented sheep”. Seems Roderick can dish it out but he can’t take it.

      • Nolo servile

        I’ve no idea about Roderick (has he been “weleased?”) but have every confidence that Rod can take whatever is thrown at him. He has a rather thicker skin than some I could mention and having scrolled through the comments of both postings I am having difficulty finding any evidence to support your assertion that he can’t take it.

        Are you one of the OJ trolls by any chance?

        • Sid

          Nah, I disagree. Roddywoddy is a sensitive sort and he needs anger management (just ask his ex). I used to read his Sunday Times column every week and I supported him even when he went on his grumpy politically incorrect rants. Politically I’m far closer to the Rodster than Owen Jones. But nowadays Rodthemod just sounds bitter. Name calling is pathetic lazy journalism, it’s infantile. Jones may be wrong on benefits, chavs etc but I admire his idealism and his guts.

          • Sarah

            One who has hit on the ruse of writing short outrageous blogs from abroad out of harm’s way, and letting his followers write the rest for him and risk the social media police.

            • Woodstockwastrel

              thats just pathetic

          • Nolo servile

            I still can’t see any evidence that he can’t take it, however many nicknames you try to bestow on him.

  • JONO7

    It is plainly obvious that the invidual from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council who removed happy foster kids from an upstanding unselfish couple on the basis that they were members of UKIP needs a dictionary, where he can look up Bigot, Imbercile, Hapless, Jobsworth, Thick and hopefully P45…..and not forgetting TWAT!…

    • Daniel Maris

      He won’t find imbercile! LOL

    • very important person

      Now I MUST get one thing OVER TO YOU little people we are professionally educated people at Rotherham Metropolitan Council therefore we always know best you little people do not have the advantage of our vast intellect that we can call on to make these difficult decisions I discussed this with a fellow employee and he reminded me about how easy it is for our colleagues in the Democratic People,s Republic of Korea to have these sort of difficult decisions excepted by there little people

      • salieri

        ACP, you’re being naughty again (hint: irony being used ironically – no punctation, misplaced upper case, professionally educated; vast intellect; People,s; these sort; excepted; there). But please don’t stop, it cheers me up no end when ploughing through the real thing.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Cameron, Clegg and Milliband would say it is justified because it helps detoxify the nation and rubs the white’s and ‘right’s faces in it.

    The couple are what Gordon Brown would call bigots.

    Rotherham Council can justify it because in the prevailing national ideology it is more important to disrupt the actions UKIP members however decent they are, than it is to disrupt the actions of legions of racist Pakistani muslim child rapists.

    The case is a simple demonstration of our ruling classes priorities.

    Hopefully something good will come out of this but I doubt it – another enquiry or three, ‘lessons learned’ but the same folk with the same ideology will sail on untroubled and uncaring.

    • Bert3000

      “racist Pakistani muslim child rapists”

      See? Galloping, bigoted, stupid racism.

      • Hexhamgeezer

        Twitter compliant lazy kneejerk fodder..

        Been out the country long?

      • PaulinusMinimus

        So in what way are the Rotheram gangs not racist, or pakistani or muslim or child rapisrs?

  • The_Missing_Think

    Since you ask… 19/20 voters went for ‘play it safe’ LibLabCon in May 2010.

    Next?… or do you still not quite understand the ‘get what you vote for factor’?

    No dog ate homework lectures, you middle classes can’t have it both ways.

    You knew best… we are here.